Read on Twitter
When the people who call themselves environmentalists but who aren't really say the ETS cannot make a big difference to emissions and say it needs to be complemented or substituted with other measures, what measures are those?: https://twitter.com/marcdaalder/status/1267931955644952576
Is it the dead-in-the-water feebate policy that taxed poor people to discount cars rich people were mostly going to buy anyway?
Is it light rail in Auckland? How's that going?
Is it the 2020 Budget which had basically nothing for climate change?
What about the Green Investment Finance Fund? https://twitter.com/henrycooke/status/1257459650980712450
Despite MBIE's bizarre analysis, shutting down oil exploration will reduce emissions. But there's only so many industries you can wholesale shut down before people get angsty! Maybe Tiwai Smelter and that's it.
There are regulatory improvements that can be made. Urban planning, greater intensification. That kind of thing. But not much more.
Anyone selling stuff like the above as fixes is selling you a gimmick.
Green washing.
Anyone selling stuff like the above as fixes is selling you a gimmick.
Green washing.
A few of them even have financial stakes in those gimmicks.
And yet people like this will look at the super-cheap to decarbonise NZ tool of the ETS (especially now it's been fixed) and say "not much more than $12 per week to decarbonise NZ? That doesn't make us poor enough! We need worse tools"
The truth is we can basically decarbonise NZ with the ETS and super-cheaply.
Polluting businesses got up in arms: "NZ can't afford it"
and so Government's weaken it and delay improvements. All over $12 a week...
Polluting businesses got up in arms: "NZ can't afford it"
and so Government's weaken it and delay improvements. All over $12 a week...
And then self-described environmentalists look at that and say "how could $12 a week possibly change people's habits" without realising that it is COMPANIES that will change production to sniff out any small margin on a product. A few cents over millions of units adds up!
So we have polluting industries saying $12 is too big a cost and "environmentalists" saying that it's not enough.
But instead of saying "look how cheaply we can get to net zero - $12 a week!" they end up lobbying for dumb gimmicks that constantly fall over.
But instead of saying "look how cheaply we can get to net zero - $12 a week!" they end up lobbying for dumb gimmicks that constantly fall over.
These "environmentalists" need to own their contribution to our failure to solve the problem.
The New Zealand Initiative has at least three - three! - climate change deniers in its senior ranks, but at least it advocates for climate policies that will actually work.
What's Russell Norman and David Hall's excuse?
What's Russell Norman and David Hall's excuse?
"the problem is multi-faceted and we need a holistic solution" is the kind of gibberish government's say right before they announce they won't increase benefit payments to the poor.
It's a lie in social policy and it's a lie in climate policy.
It's a lie in social policy and it's a lie in climate policy.
Newsroom devoted half a story to people who questioned the effectiveness of emissions trading schemes.
ETSs are just caps on emissions. The country can't emit more than the cap. Lower the cap, lower the emissions. It really is that simple. Yet somehow this is an ineffective tool
ETSs are just caps on emissions. The country can't emit more than the cap. Lower the cap, lower the emissions. It really is that simple. Yet somehow this is an ineffective tool
How about that. Small changes in input prices cause decarbonisation. But Newsroom said this was impossible. https://twitter.com/radionz/status/1270792851002200065?s=19
Contra this, the story is fine. Input costs go up, growers look for less carbon-intensive energy sources or stop production. https://twitter.com/farmgeek/status/1270809375540568065?s=19
John's tweet is also illustrative of how hard regulatory, rather than price approaches, are.
It's hard to write regs covering all scenarios (tomatoes in the Sth Is in winter). Far easier to price every time carbon is emitted and increase that price until we get to zero or lower
It's hard to write regs covering all scenarios (tomatoes in the Sth Is in winter). Far easier to price every time carbon is emitted and increase that price until we get to zero or lower
Is that Newsroom story with people saying the ETS won't do anything still up? https://twitter.com/Economissive/status/1273376225004630016?s=19
A guy from Minerals NZ on RNZ complaining about the ETS price. Good.
He's wrong about the environment not being better off because not every country has a carbon price. The host is correct.
Minerals guy does admit he's still trying to get his head around stuff
He's wrong about the environment not being better off because not every country has a carbon price. The host is correct.
Minerals guy does admit he's still trying to get his head around stuff
"of course, I am an advocate for the mining industry so I would say that"
One thing he got right: it doesn't matter whether it's the hothouses in the South Island that stop producing, or the coal mines, the carbon price will have done it's job.
Something missed in that Newsroom article when Newsroom wrote that the ETS has only small impacts on household's.
Small increases in carbon prices through the ETS can cause big reductions in emissions, again https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300046434/new-zealand-could-meet-its-zero-carbon-target-at-virtually-no-economic-cost-but-is-the-social-cost-too-high?cid=app-iPhone
